Transcription

1 european court of auditors special report no 3 Issn Impact assessments In the eu InstItUtIons: do they support decision-making? en

2

3 Special Report No Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support DECISION-MAKING? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) european court of auditors

4 european court of auditors 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel Fax Internet: Special Report No A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server ( Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010 ISBN doi: /14964 European Union, 2010 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg

5 CONTENTS 3 Paragraph Glossary of terms and abbreviations I VI Executive Summary 1 12 Introduction Audit scope and approach Observations Use of impact assessments for decision-making at the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council Impact assessment helps the Commission to formulate its proposals The Commission s impact assessment reports are considered by most users at the European Parliament and Council as relevant information in the legislative decisionmaking process Amendments to the initial Commission proposal are not subject to additional assessments of potential impacts The Commission s procedures for the preparation of impact assessments Need for more transparency in the selection procedure and targeting of impact assessment work Consultation is widely used as input for impact assessments, but not on draft reports Recent improvements in the Commission s quality review of its impact assessment reports Content and presentation of the Commission s impact assessment reports Need to improve further the presentation of how the intervention proposed is to achieve best the intended outcomes There is room for improvement in the analysis of impacts and the presentation thereof Information on implementation aspects, enforcement costs and administrative burden can be further improved Conclusions and Recommendations ANNEX I comparison of specific elements of the Commission s system with IA systems elsewhere ANNEX II audit approach and evidence collection methods Letters from the Presidents of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4 Administrative burden: The administrative and information costs that businesses incur in order to comply with legal obligations. Annual policy strategy (APS): The Commission s annual policy strategy lays down, early in year n 1, political priorities and key initiatives for year n. At the same time, it allocates the corresponding financial and human resources to these priority initiatives. It serves as a basis for a political exchange of views on the Commission s programme with the European Parliament and the Council. Co-decision: Under the co-decision procedure, the Council shares legislative power with the European Parliament. Both institutions can, however, only act on a proposal by the Commission (which has the sole right of initiative). Comitology: Committee system which oversees the delegated acts implemented by the European Commission. The committees are composed of representatives of the Member States and have the mandate to regulate certain delegated aspects of the secondary legislation adopted by the Council and, where co-decision applies, the European Parliament. The Commission chairs these meetings and provides the secretariat. Commission s legislative and work programme (CLWP): In this document, published in November of each year, the Commission presents its planned legislative and other initiatives for the following year. The CLWP does not contain all initiatives to be brought forward in a given year, but identifies policy initiatives of major importance. It thereby operationalises the political priorities and initiatives specified in the APS. Council working party (WP): A working group specialised in a given policy field at the Council of Ministers consisting of delegations of all Member States. It prepares the legal act to be adopted by the relevant Council of Ministers. Directors and Experts for Better Regulation (DEBR): Expert group consisting of officials in charge of better regulation in the EU Member States and other European countries. DEBR meets twice per year and is chaired by the delegation of the incoming Council presidency. The mandate of this group is to exchange ideas and to further develop existing initiatives by the EU and its Member States to reduce bureaucracy and improve legislation. High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens ( Stoiber Group ): This group advises the Commission with regard to the action programme for reducing administrative burden. Dr Edmund Stoiber, former Prime Minister of Bavaria, is chairman of this group. The other members represent important stakeholder organisations. Its mandate expires in 2010.

7 5 IA: Impact assessment Impact Assessment Board (IAB): A body attached to the Commission s Secretariat-General that assesses the quality of each impact assessment report and publishes its opinion thereon. The Board consists of four directors from different DGs and the deputy Secretary-General of the Commission. Intervention logic: Intervention logic is the conceptual link between an intervention s inputs and the production of its outputs and, subsequently, its impact in terms of results and outcomes. Mandelkern Group: High level advisory group that consisted of regulatory experts from the Member States and the European Commission. This group was established by the Public Administration Ministers of the Member States in November 2000 and chaired by the Frenchman Dieudonné Mandel kern, a former Member of the Conseil d état. Among other proposals, the group recommended in 2001 that the Commission should develop a tool for assessing the social, economic and environmental impacts of proposed legislation. MEP: Member of European Parliament Rapporteur: Term used in the European Parliament to describe the MEP(s) who is (are) in charge of a given proposal or report. MEPs in charge of a proposal belonging to political groups different from the group of the official European Parliament rapporteur in charge of the same proposal are called shadow-rapporteurs. Roadmap: A short document that gives an initial description of a planned Commission initiative, including an indication of the main areas to be assessed in the IA and the planning of IA work. These roadmaps have two functions: they provide an estimated timetable for the proposal and set out how the impact assessment will be taken forward. Roadmaps are published when the Commission legislative and work programme (CLWP) is adopted. Standard Cost Model (SCM): Method to assess costs incurred to meet information obligations created by legislation. Calculates cost on the basis of the average unit cost of the required administrative activity multiplied by the total number of activities performed per year. Transposition: In European Union law, a process by which the Member States give force to an EU directive in national law by adopting appropriate implementing legislation.

8 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Impact assessment is one of the cornerstones of the Commission s better regulation policy for the improvement and simplification of new and existing legislation. Its purpose is to contribute to the decision-making processes by systematically collecting and analysing information on planned interventions and estimating their likely impact. This should provide the bodies involved in legislative decision-mak ing with a basis on which to decide on the most appropriate way to address the problem identified. II. The audit analysed whether impact assessments supported decision-making in the EU institutions. In particular, it examined the extent to which: impact assessments were prepared by the Commission when formulating its proposals and the European Parliament and the Council consulted them during the legislative process; the Commission s procedures for impact assessment appropriately suppor ted the Commission s development of its initiatives; and the content of the Commission s impact assessment reports was appropria t e a n d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f i n d i n g s was conducive to being taken into account for decision-making. III. The period under examination was and the audit involved inter alia an international comparison of impact assessment systems, an analysis of a sample of Commission impact assessments, interviews and surveys with people involved in performing, reviewing and using the commission s impact assessments, both within and outside the Commission. The findings were examined against the relevant interinstitutional agreements, the Commission s guidelines and a set of good practices observed in policy documents and established by the OECD. Throughout the audit, expert groups provided advice and supported the audit work. IV. Better regulation is a responsibility of all EU institutions involved in the legislative process. On balance, particularly in recent years, the audit has shown that impact assessment has been effective in supporting decision-making within the EU institutions. In particular, it was found that the Commission had put in place a comprehensive impact assessment system since Impact assessment has become an integral element of the Commission s policy development and has been used by the Commission to design its initiatives better. The Commission s impact assessments are systematically transmitted to the European Parliament and Council to support legislative decisionmaking and users in both institutions find them helpful when considering the Commission s proposals. However, the Commission s impact assessments were not updated as the legislative procedure progressed and the European Parliament and Council rarely performed impact assessments on their own amendments.

11 9 I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t a s a to o l f o r Be t t e r Re g u l a t i o n C o v e r a g e o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m 3. IAs are carried out for legislative proposals and other Commission initiatives. All major legislative, budgetary and policydefining initiatives with significant impact must undergo an IA. Major policy initiatives are defined as all those presented in the annual policy strategy (APS) or, later, in the Commission s legislative work programme (CLWP), with some clearly defined exceptions. In addition, other significant initiatives can be covered on a case-by-case basis the Commission s IA system also applies to existing EU legislation when there is a revision or an update of the a c q u i s communautaire, for example under the Simplification rolling p rogramme. Fi n a l l y, i n , t h e s c o p e o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n s IA system was extended to implementing rules (or comitology decisions). These implementing measures are a significant source of EU legislation, as around 250 comitology committees adopt around such measures every year. Approximately of them are based on legislation adopted under the codecision procedure 4. 3 European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, p See European Commission, Report from the Commission on the working of Committees during 2006, COM(2007) 842, 2007; European Parliament, Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, Second interim report on legislative activities and interinstitutional relations, 15 May 2008, PE /CPG/GT (internal European Parliament document), Part B, Chapter 4, p. 41). 5 OECD, Indicators of regulatory management systems, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; Evaluating integrated IAs (EVIA), Final report, March C o m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m c o v e r a g e i s w i d e r t h a n t h a t o f c o m p a r a b l e n a t i o n a l s y s t e m s 5. Fully operational IA systems are in place in only a few Member States 5. Moreover, the Commission s IA system has a different and, to some extent, wider scope than other systems in OECD countries (see Annex I): firstly, other IA systems (such as in the USA) address only implementing rules (i.e. regulatory measures which further specify legislation previously adopted by Congress; in the EU context, such measures are comparable to comitology decisions ); and secondly, some European countries (such as the Netherlands and Germany) focus their analysis of forthcoming regulation on the assessment of administrative burden. In the case of the Commission, this is only one of several aspects analysed within an IA.

12 10 C o n t e n t o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s 6. the reports resulting from these IAs are expected to identify and assess the problem at stake and the objectives pursued, develop the main options for achieving the policy objective, and analyse their likely economic, environmental and social impacts. They should also analyse potential administrative burdens resulting from the proposed options, assess possible implementation and enforcement problems and specify appropriate monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the intervention or programme proposed 6. O r g a n i s a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, p r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s a n d c o s t o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m 7. within the Commission, each Directorate-General (DG) is res p o n s i b l e fo r p re p a r i n g i t s I As i n l i n e w i t h t h e Co m m i s s i o n s guidelines. Following the first version in 2002, this guidance material has been updated on three occasions, with the latest update taking place in January IAs are carried out by the staff responsible for the policy initiative, supported by dedicated IA suppor t units. Since 2007, an Impac t Assessment Board (IAB) has provided quality support and control for all IAs within the Commission 8. 6 European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, , as amended on ; European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92, Information note from the President to the Commission, Enhancing quality support and control for Commission IAs, The IA Board, 14 November impact/ia_carried_out/ia_carried_ out_en.htm 8. a preliminary draft IA report must accompany the proposal when going through interdepartmental consultation. A final draft IA report will accompany the legislative proposal when it is sent to the College of Commissioners for its final adoption. The final IA report is also sent to the European Parliament and the Council along with the definite proposal and is made available on the Europa website 9.

13 11 I n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e Eu r o p e a n P a r l i a m e n t, t h e Co u n c i l a n d t h e Co m m i s s i o n 9. In the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making in 2003, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed... on the positive contribution of IAs in improving the quality of Community legislation, with particular regard to the scope and substance thereof 10. In 2005, a further interinstitutional agreement was signed between the European Parliament (EP), the Council and the Commission on a Common approach to IA In 2005 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission had agreed that the interinstitutional agreement was to be reconsidered by the end of This review is still outstanding. As a preparatory step, in 2008, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission produced stocktaking reports which set out their views on the common approach to IA since on several occasions, the European Parliament has adopted resolutions on better regulation and the use of IA, which, in general, viewed IA as helpful in informing EU decisionmaking 14. Similarly, the Council committed itself, in its recent conclusions on better regulation, towards continuing to use the Commission s IA reports and the accompanying IAB opinions throughout the negotiating process 15. The European Parliament and the Council have communicated to the Cour t their views o n t o p i c s c overed i n t h i s repor t ( l e t t e r s f rom t h e Presidents of the European Parliament and the Council are attached to this report). 10 Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (OJ C 321, ), paragraph Interinstitutional agreement on a common approach to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on ). 12 Interinstitutional agreement on a common approach to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on ), point EP: The Conference of Committee Chairs, IA: The European Parliament s experience, A stocktaking report of the common approach to IA. Council: Note from the Director of the General Secretariat Directorate- General, Directorate I, Review of the interinstitutional common approach to IA State of play of the handling of IA in the Council, Brussels, Commission: Review of the interinstitutional common approach to IA (IA) Implementation of the Common approach by the Commission. A working document of the Secretariat General SG.C.2 D(2008) Resolution of 24 March 2004 on the assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (2003/2079(INI)); Resolution of 10 July 2005 on minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation (2005/2140(INI)); Resolution of 16 May 2006 on the implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force (2004/2224(INI)); Resolution of 16 May 2006 on better law-making 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity 12th annual report (2005/2055(INI)); Resolution of 4 September 2007 on better law-making 2005: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality 13th annual report (2006/2279(INI)); Resolution of 4 September 2007 on the single market review (2007/2024(INI)); Resolution of 4 September 2007 on better regulation in the European Union (2007/2095(INI)); Resolution of 21 October 2008 on better law-making 2006: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality 14th annual report (2008/2045(INI)); European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Report on better regulation in the EU (2007/2095(INI)); A6-0273/2007 final, : see explanatory statement and points 5 to 15, 21, 26, 30, 42 to Council of the European Union, Competitiveness Council conclusions on better regulation, 17076/09, , point 6.

14 Figure 1 provides an overview of the role of impact assessment in developing and deciding on the commission s initiatives and legislative proposals. figure 1 the role of impact assessment in developing and deciding on the commission s initiatives and legislative ProPosals IA provides support for decision-making... Final legislation... in the European Parliament and Council Legislative decision-making: Appreciation of IA reports, discussion of IA reports, impacts of amendments to Commission proposals are assessed IA report Commission legislative proposal/initiative... in the Commission Development of Commission proposal: Coverage of most relevant initiatives, IA part of policy development, IA as support for decision-making Procedures for IA in the Commission Selection of initiative to undergo IA Consultation of interested parties for IA Quality control of IA Content and presentation of the Commission s IA reports Description of policy problem, objectives and intervention logic Comparison of policy options through assessment of impacts Implementation, enforcement, monitoring and evaluation of initiative special report no 3/2010 Impact assessments in the eu institutions: do they support decision-making?

15 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH the audit assessed whether the Commission s IAs supported decision-making in the EU institutions. In particular, it examined the extent to which: IAs were prepared by the Commission when formulating its proposals and the European Parliament and the Council consulted them during the legislative process; the Commission s procedures for IA appropriately supported the Commission s development of its initiatives; and the content of the Commission s IA reports was appropriate and the presentation of findings was conducive to being taken into account for decision-making. 14. the period under review was 2003 to The audit involved inter alia: a comparison of specific elements of the Commission s system with IA systems elsewhere; an analysis of I A produc tion statistics and of a sample of IA reports (scorecard analysis related to five DGs and corresponding to around a quarter of all IAs produced during the period audited); and enquiries and surveys with people involved in performing, reviewing and using the Commission s IAs both within and outside the Commission. Annex II contains a more detailed description of the methodology used for the audit. 16 Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making; Interinstitutional common approach to IA (IA), European Commission, Communication on impact assessment, COM(2002) 276 final; European Commission, Communication on Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, COM(2002) 704 final; Information note from the President to the Commission, Enhancing quality support and control for Commission IAs, The IA Board, 14 November 2006, European Commission, 2005/2006 Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, Final report, 13 November OECD, Regulatory impact analysis Best practices in OECD countries, 1997; OECD, APEC OECD integrated checklist on regulatory reform: Final draft, 2005; OECD, Indicators of regulatory management systems, the findings were examined against the relevant interinstitutional agreements 16, the Commission s guidelines 17 and a set of good practices observed in policy documents 18 and established by the OECD 19. Expert groups composed of practitioners in the field of IA and better regulation were invited by the Court to provide support and advice throughout the audit. 16. the analysis of the quality of individual pieces of legislation or the process of law-making as such were not within the scope of the audit.

16 OBSERVATIONS 14 Use of impact assessments for decisionmaking at the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council 17. IAs contribute to the decision-making processes by systematically collecting and analysing information on planned interventions and estimating their likely impact 20. The relevant interinstitutional agreements between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission define that IAs should first of all help the Commission to develop its polic y initiatives and legislative proposals. Subsequently, during the legislative procedure, IAs presented by the Commission and, where appropriate, those prepared by the European Parliament and the Council, should provide the information based on which the legislators can decide on the most appropriate way to address the problem identified. 20 European Commission, Communication from the Commission on IA, COM(2002) 276 final of , paragraph 1.2.: IA is... the process of [the] systematic analysis of the likely impacts of intervention by public authorities. 18. For this purpose, the audit examined: the extent to which the Commission has carried out IAs for its legislative proposals and other initiatives and whether IAs were actively used in the Commission s policy development and its preparation of legislative proposals; whether the Commission s IAs were perceived by users at the European Parliament and the Council as contributing to the legislative decision-making process and whether IAs affected the way in which legislative proposals were discussed in the relevant committees and working parties; and the extent to which the legislators carried out IAs of their own substantive amendments or requested the Commission to present updates of its IAs in the light of such amendments and whether national bodies provided additional information to inform legislative decision-making at the EU level.

17 15 Impact assessment helps the Commission to formulate its proposals S i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s c a r r i e d o u t s i n c e during the period audited IAs had strong institutional backing and were increasingly used to provide input to the Commission s development of policy initiatives and legislative proposals 21. Overall, 404 IA reports were published by the Commission during the period audited. Since 2003, the number of IAs carried out annually has increased to 121 reports in 2008 (see Figure 2). 21 José Manuel Barroso President of the European Commission: Response to UK Presidency Programme, European Parliament Plenary Session, Brussels, 23 June 2005; Uniting in peace: the role of Law in the European Union, Jean Monnet lecture, EUI Florence, 31 March 2006; Qualité de la législation européenne : le temps des résultats, European Parliament, Strasbourg, 4 April 2006; Presentation of the European Commission s 2007 work programme, European Parliament, Strasbourg, 14 November 2006; Alive and kicking: the renewed Lisbon strategy is starting to pay off, Brussels, 5 March 2007; We are all new Europeans now, Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas), Vilnius, 29 March Günther Verheugen, Better regulation Conference of the Slovenian Presidency, Lubljana, 17 April FIGURE 2 Number of impact assessments performed each year Total of 404 IA reports Source: European Commission.

18 16 C o m m i s s i o n s ob j e c t i v e o f CLWP c o v e r a g e a t t a i n e d 20. the selection of initiatives to undergo an IA is a significant decision, in terms of political implications and resources needed. During the period audited the main condition for selection was the inclusion of the initiative in the CLWP, which contains the Commission s major policy initiatives as set out in the Annual Policy Strategy (APS; see Box 2). 21. From 2003 to 2008, IAs were carried out for 69 % of all CLWP initiatives. Since 2005, in accordance with the criteria specified by the Commission at the time, IAs were undertaken for all relevant items on its CLWP, i.e. those initiatives that were considered to have significant impact. Box 2 set of conditions for selecting initiatives that are to undergo IA In 2003, the first year of the implementation of the IA system, the Commission decided to select a certain number of proposals that should undergo IA. The Commission based its selection on the importance of the proposals selected in relation to the political priorities, the feasibility for its departments to perform the assessments in the short term, and the need to maintain a balance between different types of proposal and the involvement of a broad range of departments was the first year in which the IA procedure was fully integrated into the programming cycle and the use of IAs was extended to cover a set of proposals listed in the CLWP which were considered to have significant impacts 22. Since 2005, IAs have been required for all initiatives set out in the CLWP 23, with some types of initiatives being exempted See APS 2005; COM(2004) 133 final, CLWP 2004, COM(2003) 645 final, Annex 2: these initiatives included major policy-defining, pre-legislative and legislative proposals. 23 European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, , as amended on , Procedural rules (II.1). 24 Green Papers, proposals for consultation with social partners, periodic Commission decisions and reports, proposals following international obligations and COM measures deriving from it s power to oversee the correct implementation of EC law and executive decisions are exempted.

19 17... a n d i n c r e a s i n g t r e n d t o a l s o c a r r y o u t i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s f o r i n i t i a t i ve s o u t s i d e t h e CLWP 22. In line with its rules and based on a case-by-case assessment, the Commission has also produced IAs for initiatives not included in the CLWP 25. In 2008, such IAs accounted for a majority of IAs carried out in that year (see Figure 3). C o n d u c t i n g i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s i s b e c o m i n g s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n s po l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t 23. IA is increasingly becoming part of the policy development culture at the Commission. Over the past few years the Commission has provided extensive training in IA methodology. The way in which IAs are to be produced is set out in Commission IA guidelines issued by the Secretariat-General that are applicable in all departments and services. Since 2002, this material has been updated on three occasions, with the latest update taking place in January These initiatives (which are to have potentially significant impacts, address novel or sensitive issues or affect stakeholders particularly and for which an IA should therefore be carried out) are determined on a basis of a screening by the Secretariat-General, with the support of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB). 26 European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, , as amended on ; European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92, Figure 3 Breakdown of impact assessments between 2005 and 2008 CLWP vs non-clwp % % % % % % % % Commission's legislative and work programme Non-Commission's legislative and work programme Source: ECA analysis of Commission data.

20 since 2007, an Impact Assessment Board (IAB) supported by the Commission s Secretariat-General (SG) reviews the quality of the IAs carried out by the directorates-general. In addition, the IA guidelines have recently specified that directors-general must assume responsibility for the methodological soundness of the IA documents by signing the draft IA report submitted for the IAB quality check 27. The guidelines also prescribe the use of IA steering groups which aim to ensure consistency between policy areas in the IA exercise. 27 European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92. I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s p r i m a r i l y h e l p t o s h a p e Co m m i s s i o n p r o p o s a l s 25. the audit found that IAs were not used by the Commission to decide whether to go ahead with a proposal. The decision whether to launch an initiative is generally taken before an impact assessment report is finalised. The Commission rather uses IA to gather and analyse evidence that, during the policy development process, is used to improve its proposed initiative (see Box 3 for an example). BOX 3 impact assessment helps to improve the proposed initiative: Roaming I In the Roaming I case 28, the decision to legislate by means of a regulation 29 (rather than through a directive or not to legislate at all) was upheld, but the legislative proposal was adjusted throughout the IA process. In its second phase consultation, the Commission had proposed a regulatory approach called the Home Pricing Principle as a possible means to address the problems in the roaming market. In the IA, which followed the public consultation process, the Commission took on board the view of the majority of respondents, and ultimately proposed an alternative approach (i.e. the European Home Market approach) which provided a better solution to the problems in the roaming market. 28 COM(2006) Commissioner Reding speech before the European Regulators Group on 8 February 2006.

21 the audit also showed that, in par ticular for recent years, I A is becoming broader in terms of the number of alternative options analysed and that resources are targeted to the assessment of initiatives according to their importance: 30 European Commission, 2009 Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92, Chapter 3, pp analysis of an increasingly wide range of policy alternatives: Commission staff in charge of drafting legislative proposals and the related IAs reported that the IA process required them to consider more alternatives than previously when preparing a policy initiative. It was found that, throughout the period audited, the number of alternative options presented in the IA repor ts increased. In par ticular, for IAs produced in 2007 and 2008, the Court s analysis showed that the Commission increasingly analysed several feasible regulatory alternatives during its IAs; and prioritisation of resources on legislative proposals and CLWP initiatives: The Commission considers that more resources should be devoted to the analysis of the most significant initiatives than to the less significant initiatives. In the Commission guidelines this is called the principle of proportionate analysis 30. Based on estimates provided by the Commission, it can be shown that more time is devoted to t h o s e I As w h i c h a re u n d e r t a k e n fo r l e gislative p ro p o s a l s (as compared to non-legislative initiatives) and which are included in the CLWP (as compared to those which are not) (see Figure 4). This indicates that the Commission focuses its resources in accordance with the pre-defined priorities. Figure 4 Average staff resources used for the production of impact assessment reports Legislative Non-legislative CLWP item Non-CLWP item Average staff resources per IA in person-months Note: 52 IA reports. Source: ECA analysis of Commission data (2009).

22 20 I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s a r e a c t i v e l y u s e d f o r d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e Co l l e g e o f Co m m i s s i o n e r s 27. at the Commission, initiatives are designed and impact assessments are prepared within the directorates-general under the authority of the Commissioner in charge of a given policy field. Subsequently, Commission proposals are adopted by the College of Commissioners and these decisions are generally prepared at weekly meetings of their Private Office staff. According to Commission Private Office staff who were interviewed, IA reports provide a valuable source of information about proposals put forward by Commissioners other than their own and IAs (and the related IAB opinions) are regularly discussed at the weekly preparatory meetings. 31 Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making: in particular points 25 and 29; Interinstitutional agreement on a common approach to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on ): in particular points 5, 6 and 13. The Commission s impact assessment reports are considered by most users at the European Parliament and Council as relevant information in the legislative decision-making process C o m m i s s i o n i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s a r e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e Eu r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d Co u n c i l t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p o l i c y i n i t i a t i ve 28. IA reports should be made available to the European Parliament and the Council fully and freely so that the legislators can obtain a comprehensive view of the evidence base provided in the IA report 31. D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d a u d i t e d, a l l I A r e p o r t s accompanying legislative proposals were forwarded to both institutions. BOX 4 Good practice example of an impact assessment being presented and discussed in a European Parliamentary Committee working group At the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, a working group meeting was dedicated to the presentation and discussion of the IA on the proposed directive on consumer rights 32. After a short presentation of the IA by a representative of the Commission, several MEPs commented on the substance of the IA report and made suggestions as to what aspects would merit further attention by the Commission. This example demonstrates that IAs can play a role in informing legislators and discussing IA reports with MEPs can provide relevant feedback to the Commission with regard to the legislative proposal. 32 COM(2008) 614.

23 21 T h e Co m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s r a r e l y d i s c u s s e d a t m e e t i n g s o f Eu r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t c o m m i t t e e s a n d C o u n c i l w o r k i n g p a r t i e s 29. In the European Parliament and Council, it is recommended practice to discuss the Commission s IA whenever a proposal is submitted 33. However, current practice observed in both the Parliament and Council falls significantly short of this recommended approach: at the European Parliament, the Commission s IA reports are not systematically presented and discussed at committee meetings. The audit found that the Commission was only invited to present its IAs in exceptional cases (see Box 4 for a good practice example). An analysis of over public European Parliament Committee documents of the parliamentary term revealed that only one document made explicit reference to a Commission IA 34 ; and internal Council guidance suggests discussion of the Commission s IAs at Working Party (WP) level 35. According to interviews carried out with Council officials, a formal discussion of the IA and where appropriate a Commission presentation is decided on a case-by-case basis (see Box 5 for a good practice example). An analysis of the Council public register for the period showed that only four documents made explicit reference to a Commission IA. 33 EP Conference of Committee Chairmen, IA handbook, 17 July 2008; Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, Handling IAs in Council Indicative guidance for working party chairs, Luxembourg, European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, ITRE(2008)0123_1; 23 January 2008, Meeting 17:00 18:00; Letter of Commissioner Piebalgs on the Commission s IA, Continuation of the exchange of views on the Energy Package Electricity and Gas. 35 Council of the EU, General Secretariat, Handling IAs in Council Indicative guidance for working party chairs, BOX 5 Good practice examples of impact assessments being discussed in Council Working Party During the period audited, two IAs in the energy policy field were presented in the Council working party: the legislative package on the internal market for electricity and gas 36 and the package of implementation measures for the EU s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for In both cases the discussion took place at the Commission s suggestion. It was not limited to one WP meeting but informed the debate at the Council throughout the legislative decision-making process. 36 COM(2007) 528, COM(2007) 529, COM(2007) 530, COM(2007) 531 and COM(2007) COM(2008) 16, COM(2008) 17 and COM(2008) 19.

25 23 U s e r s b e l i e v e t h a t i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s h a d a po s i t i ve e f f e c t o n t h e q u a l i t y o f EU l e g i s l a t i o n 31. during the audit, users interviewed at the European Parliament and the Council generally indicated their support for IA. A large majority of respondents to the Council WP survey (68 %) felt that the IA reports they had reviewed had a positive effect on the quality of the final legal act. This positive view of the Commission s IA system was also corroborated by national experts on better regulation surveyed at the DEBR meeting in June More than 8 out of 10 respondents (85 %) saw IA as a contribution towards the EU policy objective of better regulation (see Figure 6). FIGURE 6 Surveys: Contribution of impact assessment to Better Regulation 100 % 75 % Directors and experts for better regulation surveyed: Is the Commission s IA system effectively leading to better regulation? 85 % Delegates in Council WP surveyed: For those IA reports I have personally analysed, I consider that they have positively contributed to the quality of the final legislative act. 68 % 50 % 25 % 15 % 20 % 12 % 0 % yes/rather yes no/rather no strongly agree/agree strongly disagree/disagree don't know Note: 26 / 90 responses. Source: ECA Council working party survey/ Directors and Experts for Better Regulation survey (2009).

26 24 I n t e r e s t g r o u p s a n d c i v i l s o c i e t y o r g a n i s a t i o n s t a k e i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s i n t o a c c o u n t w h e n c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s 32. public scrutiny of legislative proposals is of the utmost importance in relation to the policy objective of better regulation. The Commission s final IA reports are public documents available online to all interested parties once the related policy initiative has been proposed. This is international good practice (see Annex I). 38 Business Europe, Eurochambers, European Consumers Organisation, European Environmental Bureau, European Federations for Transport and Environment, European Trade Union Federation, Social Forum, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 33. Interviews with stakeholder organisations representing interest groups and civil society 38 showed that their representatives systematically took IAs into account. However, some indicated that they saw the IA reports as a policy justification of the Commission s proposal rather than an independent assessment of its possible impacts. This criticism was more pronounced with regard to IAs undertaken in the early years of the system s operation and has since become less of a concern. Amendments to the initial Commission proposal are not subject to additional assessments of potential impacts T h e Pa r l i a m e n t a n d Co u n c i l c a r r i e d o u t e i g h t i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s o f a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e Co m m i s s i o n p r o p o s a l 34. the institutional set-up of the European Union means that legislative decision-making differs from that in most Member States. According to the Treaty, while the European Parliament and the Council act as legislators, the Commission has the sole right of initiative. Under the Lisbon Treaty co-decision has been extended to more policy areas.

27 In practice, nearly all Commission proposals are modified (sometimes to a significant extent) by the legislator during the legislative procedure. Therefore, the European Parliament and the Council have agreed that, where the co-decision procedure applies, they may, on the basis of jointly defined criteria and procedures, have IAs carried out prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment, either at first reading or at the conciliation stage 39. This commitment was reaffirmed in the 2005 Inter-institutional agreement on a Common approach to IA h owe ve r, t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e i nterinstitutional a gre e m e nt h a s only been partially implemented by the European Parliament and the Council. Between 2005 and 2008, the European Parliament adopted 377 acts of secondary legislation and the Council The audit found that during this period: the European Parliament had carried out IAs for amendments on seven proposals 42, and the Council had carried out one IA the European Parliament 44 and Council 45 have recently reconfirmed their commitment to carrying out IAs on their own substantive amendments. However, whereas the European Parliament has created the conditions for producing its own IA studies by putting a framework contract for the related procedures in place, this is not yet the case at the Council Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01, Article 30). 40 Interinstitutional agreement on a common approach to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on ). 41 See RECH_menu.do?ihmlang=en last viewed on 15 June IA: The European Parliament s experience A stocktaking report of the common approach to IA, The Conference of Committee Chairs, December 2008 (IAs on amendments: (1) priority substances in water (February 2008); (2) certain aspects of the working time directive (July 2007); (3) The Interoperability of the Community railway system II (April 2007); (4) Proposed air quality directive (September 2006); (5) Nominal Quantities for Pre-packed Products (November 2005); (6) IA of recycling targets in the waste framework directive (May 2008); (7) Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (November 2005). 43 Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, , p. 1). 44 European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur Katalin Lévai, Report on better regulation in the EU (2007/2095(INI)); A6-0280/2007 final, : in particular, see explanatory statement and paragraphs 5 15, 21, 26, 30 and 42 43; European Parliament, Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, Second interim report on legislative activities and interinstitutional relations, 21 May 2008, PE /CPG/GT (Internal European Parliament document), Part A, paragraph 1.3, pp ). 45 Council, General Secretariat, Competitiveness Council conclusions on Better regulation, 9663/09 COMPET 264, ; paragraph Note from the Director of General Secretariat, Directorate-General C, Directorate I, Review of the interinstitutional common approach to IA State of play of the handling of IA in the Council, Brussels,

28 26 I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s r e l e a s e d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n a r e n o t u p d a t e d d u r i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e d u r e 38. In addition to IAs carried out by the European Parliament or the Council, the interinstitutional agreements provide that the legislators can invite the Commission to update its initial IA in light of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament or the Council Updating the Commission s IA report would be most relevant for significant pieces of legislation or in those cases where significant changes to the initial Commission proposal (for ins t a n c e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n l o g i c o r i n s t r u m e n t s used) had been proposed for adoption Interinstitutional agreement on a common approach to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on ), point Inter-Institutional agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01): in particular point however, the audit found that IAs carried out by the Commission have not been updated during the period audited. This was not even the case for the Services Directive, which was substantially altered during the legislative procedure (see Box 6). BOX 6 example of the Commission s proposals for a Directive on services in the internal market With its legislative proposal, the Commission aimed at reducing barriers to cross-border trade in services within the EU. The initial Commission proposal was presented in March , and the related IA report in January On 22 March 2005 the European Council considered that the Commission needed to carry out a far reaching revision of its initial proposal to better preserve the European social model. On 5 April 2006 the Commission presented a modified proposal to the Council, including most of the modifications voted by the European Parliament, in accordance to the co-decision procedure in the first reading. On 29 May 2006 the Council approved the amended text 51. However, no revised IA was presented to reflect the impacts of the changes made to the initial proposal. The revised proposal was finally adopted on 12 December 2006 by the European Parliament and Council, as Directive 2006/123/EC. 49 European Commission, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market, COM(2004) 2 final/3, SEC(2004) Opinion of the European Parliament of 16 February 2006, Council common position of 24 July 2006 (OJ C 270 E, , p. 1) and Position of the European Parliament of 15 November Council decision of 11 December 2006.

29 27 U s e o f n a t i o n a l i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s b y Me m b e r St a t e s d u r i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e d u r e : Un i t e d Ki n g d o m g o o d p r a c t i c e 41. In addition, IAs of Commission proposals could also be performed by national administrations to build their government s negotiating position at the Council. The audit found, however, that in practice only the United Kingdom seeks systematically to use its national IA system for this purpose (see Box 7). BOX 7 National impact assessments on Commission proposals international good practice The United Kingdom carries out national IAs on significant Commission initiatives to support the negotiating position of its Permanent Representation 52. It carries out its own IA, generally using data related to the United Kingdom, and thereby challenges the analysis provided in the Commission s IA. In Germany, the Bundestag has introduced a requirement to assess the implications of proposed EU legislation, but in actual fact this has not yet been implemented 53. In Poland, the authorities also have the mandate to prepare a national IA in the event of a significant legislative proposal, but this has not yet resulted in a formal IA. 52 UK Better Regulation Executive, IA guidance, 53 Agreement between the German Bundestag and the federal government on cooperation in matters concerning the EU in implementation of Section 6 of the Act on cooperation between the federal government and the German Bundestag in matters concerning the EU (Vereinbarung zwischen dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung über die Zusammenarbeit in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union in Ausführung des 6 des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit von Bundesregierung und Deutschem Bundestag in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union); Paragraph I.5.; Bundesgesetzblatt 2006 Part I No 44 Bonn, 30 September 2006.

30 28 The Commission s procedures for the preparation of impact assessments 42. the Commission s procedures for IA determine the way in which IAs provide support for the Commission s internal decisionmaking. For this purpose, the audit examined whether the Commission s approach ensured: selection of those initiatives to undergo IA which have the most significant impact or are politically the most sensitive; consultation with stakeholders for the most important stages of the IA process; and quality review of its IA work. Need for more transparency in the selection procedure and targeting of impact assessment work 43. the Commission specifies, in its guidance material, the criteria according to which its departments (together with the Secretariat-General) should determine the initiatives that require an IA. I n par ticular, IAs should be targeted at those initiatives that have the most significant impacts on citizens, businesses and administrations or that are politically sensitive. T h e Co m m i s s i o n s se l e c t i o n o f i n i t i a t i ve s f o r w h i c h i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s a r e u n d e r t a k e n i s b a s e d o n a ca s e - b y - c a s e a n a l y s i s 44. the decision on whether to carry out an IA is based on a caseby-case analysis. The Commission does not use quantifiable indicators (such as estimated monetised impac t) to establish thresholds above which IAs need to be carried out. An approach using such thresholds is followed in some OECD countries (see Annex I). For IAs relating to legislative proposals outside the CLWP, the reasons for the selection of initiatives to be analysed are not made public.

31 29 C o m m i s s i o n s mo n t h l y r e p o r t i n g o n l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i v i t y d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e p l a n n e d i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t w o r k 45. an overview of all legislative proposals under development within the Commission (forward planning report) is submitted each month to the European Parliament and the Council and is made public on the Europa website. However, this monthly report does not indicate the initiatives for which an IA is to be undertaken. This situation differs from the US system, where such initiatives are clearly highlighted in the overall catalogue of forthcoming regulatory activity 54. Similarly, in the United K i n g d o m, g o v e r n m e n t d e p a r t m e n t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o p u b l i s h a list of all planned regulatory proposals for the next three years which are to be accompanied by an IA (see Annex I). 46. In the audited period, the roadmaps attached to the CLWP were the only documents that provided an indication for which initiatives IAs are to be carried out. IAs that were not related to initiatives included in the CLWP (i.e. the majority of IAs in 2008) were not visible beforehand outside the Commission. Consultation is widely used as input for impact assessments, but not on draft reports 54 Planning and monitoring regulatory activity in the USA: Every six months, the Office for Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the President s Office for Management and Budget (OMB) prepares a Regulatory agenda and plan, compiling information on forthcoming regulatory activity from all federal agencies and its anticipated gross impact in terms of costs and/or benefits. This plan identifies for which implementing rules proposed by agencies IAs are to be carried out. The plan is made public. 55 European Commission, Communication on Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, COM(2002) 704 final. 47. the IA process should be transparent and draw on the expertise and views of others. Public scrutiny is as an effective verification mechanism to ensure that I As address the most relevant issues, include all feasible policy options and provide a balanced view. Consultations enable the Commission to gather the opinions of interested parties and to take into account various points of view. These consultations should be carried out in accordance with the Commission s own standards in this matter consultations with stakeholders are widely used by the Commission, and the contributions submitted are increasingly made public on the Europa website. The audit found that the minimum consultation periods were generally respected.

32 consulting on draft Ia reports is useful in ensuring that the analysis is complete, consistent and accurate. In particular, it provides a basis for identifying and quantifying potential costs and benefits, administrative burdens and problems with implementation and enforcement. however, the cour t s analysis indicated that the commission never consulted on draft Ia reports. whereas consultations were sometimes used to identify possible policy options early in the process (21 % of cases of Ias reviewed), they virtually never concerned the commission s preliminary assessment of alternative policy options. In the survey with council wps, 72 % of respondents said that an interim draft report should be made available some time before the commission proposal was published (see Figure 7). 50. the court notes that in some oecd countries like australia 56, the Usa 57 and the United Kingdom 58 draft Ia reports are systematically published for information and comment or draft versions of a proposed legal act are discussed with stakeholder organisations (see Annex I). 56 council of australian Governments: Best practice regulation a guide for ministerial councils and national standards setting bodies, october o connor close, c.; mancini d. j.: comparison of Us and european commission guidelines on regulatory Ia/analysis, Industrial Policy and Economic Reforms Papers no 3, april United Kingdom cabinet office, Better regulation executive, Ia guidance, London, may figure 7 council working Party survey: an interim impact assessment report should be made available some time before the ProPosal don t know 16 % strongly agree 26 % disagree or strongly disagree 11 % agree 47 % Note: 91 responses. Source: eca council working party survey (2009). special report no 3/2010 Impact assessments in the eu institutions: do they support decision-making?

33 31 Recent improvements in the Commission s quality review of its impact assessment reports I m p a c t As s e s s m e n t Bo a r d r e v i e w s q u a l i t y o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s w i t h i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n 51. since 2008, the IAB has reviewed practically all draft IA reports. Its quality control covers all aspects dealt with in an IA and all stages of the process, starting with a preliminary review of the roadmap. In cases where the IAB considers the IA report to be of insufficient quality, it can request resubmission. In 2008, this happened in 43 out of 135 cases. Four of these 43 resubmitted reports even had to be revised and resubmitted a third time. 52. according to the Commission staff interviewed in connection with the in-depth case studies, the creation of the IAB as an internal quality review body has put pressure on the DGs to present good quality draft reports. It has also added transparency to the system since all IAB opinions are published on the Europa website. E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f q u a l i t y r e v i e w s u b j e c t t o t i m e l y a v a i l a b i l i t y o f IAB o p i n i o n 53. considering that the Commission initiative has to go through interdepartmental consultation, decision-making by the Members of the Commission and translation, the IAB opinion can only have a substantive effect on the final version of the underlying initiative if the IAB review takes place early enough in the process. IAB recommendations are in many cases substantial and, if followed, would imply significant additional IA work and potential changes to the initiative. This in 2007 and 2008 represented a challenge, since in one third of the cases analysed the time between the final IAB opinion and the adoption of the proposal was less than 6 weeks. Nevertheless, as indicated in the IAB reports examined, the Board s recommendations were followed up at least to some extent in the final IA report.

34 32 T h e IAB d o e s n o t h a v e a ma n d a t e t o r e q u i r e t h a t IAs ar e c a r r i e d o u t b u t a d v i s e s t h e SG a n d t h e DGs in s e l e c t i n g i n i t i a t i ve s f o r i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t 54. the IAB does not have a mandate to require DGs to initiate IA work in respect of a particular proposal (see Annex I). Nevertheless, the IAB advises the SG and the DGs in identifying initiatives that should undergo IA 59. On this basis, in 2008, the SG initially saw a need for 55 additional IAs. After consulting with the DGs, the SG agreed that an IA was necessar y in 21 of these cases. 59 Information note from the President to the Commission, Enhancing quality support and control for Commission IAs, The Impact Assessment Board, 14 November moreover, the IAB cannot put the IA report (and the related legislative proposal) on hold: instead, the Secretariat-General may inter vene at the interdepar tmental consultation stage in relation to either document. However, no intervention specifically addressing the final IA report had been observed in the audited period.

35 33 Content and presentation of the Commission s impact assessment reports 56. the results of the IA process are summarised in IA reports which should provide information based on which the legislators can decide on the most appropriate way to address the problem identified. Therefore, the Commission s IA reports are expecte d to p rovide a compre h e n s i ve a n d comparative a s s e s s m e n t of the different feasible policy options. The audit examined whether: the IA reports provided a description of the issue to be addressed and explained how the benefits of a planned intervention would be attained; the information provided in the IA reports was presented in a user-friendly way and allowed a comparison of the alternative options analysed; and IAs provided the content that is relevant to polic y-makers (such as information on potential implementation problems, enforcement issues and administrative burdens). In this context the Court recognises that any analysis of potential future impacts is necessarily uncertain, incomplete and simplified. Need to improve further the presentation of how the intervention proposed is to achieve best the intended outcomes 57. IA reports should provide a description of the problem at stake, specify relevant policy objectives and set out a range of appropriate options to address the problem identified. Further, they should illustrate how the intended outcomes and results can be achieved with the proposed delivery mechanism.

36 34 I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s p r o v i d e a so u n d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m a n d s p e c i f y p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s 58. since 2003, the Commission s guidelines have required IAs to identify the problem to be addressed and establish policy obj e c t i ves c o r re s p o n d i n g t o t h e p roblem a n d i t s c a u s e s. A l l I A r e p o r t s r e v i e w e d i n t h e C o u r t s a n a l y s i s c o n t a i n e d s e c t i o n s on problem identification and policy objectives. As far as the in-depth cases are concerned, these sections provided an adequate overview of the problem and specified a set of reasonable policy objectives. 59. this was corroborated by the enquiries with users of IA reports in the other institutions, Member States and stakeholder organisations. They reported that these sections of the IA reports often enabled them to understand better the Commission s reasons for initiating a proposal. According to the interviewees, these sections were the most read parts of the IA reports. Also, 84 % of respondents to the Council WP survey agreed or strongly agreed that the problem description enabled them to have a better understanding of the reasoning behind the proposal. 60 See also European Court of Auditors: Special Report No 9/2007, Evaluating the EU research and technological development (RTD) framework programmes could the Commission s approach be improved? ; Special Report No 7/2008, Intelligent energy ( ), Special Report No 2/2009, The European Union s public health programme ( ): An effective way to improve health? I n t e r v e n t i o n l o g i c n o t u s e d t o i l l u s t r a t e h o w e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s a r e t o b e a t t a i n e d 60. In none of the cases reviewed in the Court s analysis did the IA provide an explicit illustration of the intervention logic underlying the initiative. As a consequence, the IA reports do not provide a standardised presentation of how the objectives and expected outcomes of the proposed intervention can be achieved with the intended delivery mechanisms and, with regard to expenditure programmes, the estimated budget 60.

37 35 There is room for improvement in the analysis of impacts and the presentation thereof 61. IAs must be easily accessible and understandable to non-expert readers in order to be used in policy-making. They should help to identify the policy option and delivery mechanisms which best address the problem, by providing a comparative analysis of the options. This can often be facilitated by providing information in quantitative and monetary terms. IAs should therefore specify the costs and benefits of proposals, how they occur and who is affected. According to the Commission s guidelines, all impacts should be quantified and monetised where possible and appropriate, based on robust methods and reliable data European Commission, 2005/2006 Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791. M a i n r e s u l t s a n d m e s s a g e s o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s n o t a l w a y s e a s y t o g a t h e r 62. although the presentation of IA reports follows a common structure set out in the IA guidelines, it is not always easy to gather their main results and messages. According to the survey carried out as part of the audit, this is mainly explained by their length and technical nature, the complexity of the language used (see Figure 8) a n d b y t h e o t h e r w e a k n e s s e s described below. FIGURE 8 Council Working Party Survey: Main obstacles to an effective use of Commission impact assessments Lack of summary 33 % Language availability 35 % Use of technical language 37 % Length of the document 48 % Note: 93 responses. Source: ECA Council working party survey (2009).

38 36 A n a l y s i n g a l l e c o n o m i c, s o c i a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s i s a ch a l l e n g e 63. the Commission s self-imposed requirement to assess all significant economic, social and environmental impacts (the three pillars ) is ambitious. The international comparison identified no other system where a similarly comprehensive approach was followed (see Annex I). 62 National Audit Office, Delivering high quality impact assessments, , p the Cour t s analysis showed that, in practice, the Commission s IA work was asymmetric between the three pillars and between costs and benefits (see Figure 9). This reflects the fact that not all types of impacts are equally relevant for any particular initiative. According to the survey of the Council WPs, a majority of respondents thought that there was an appropriate balance between the economic, environmental and social impacts of the different policy options (see Figure 10). D i r e c t c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n a l t e r n a t i v e o p t i o n s i s s o m e t i m e s d i f f i c u l t 65. IA should provide a basis for comparison of alternative options. The Court s analysis found that this was the case for two thirds of the IA reports examined. In the remaining IA reports it was difficult to compare alternative options because of a lack of quantified impact analysis, insufficient use of methods to compare and present qualitative evidence and an asymmetry in the depth of analysis between different options. 66. Firstly, impacts are often not quantified and monetised to facilitate a comparison of options (see Figure 11). This is also what respondents to the survey reported: nearly half (48 %) disagreed or strongly disagreed that an appropriate quantification and monetisation of the costs and benefits of the impacts of the different policy options had been achieved (see Figure 12). Some OECD countries have a stricter requirement to quantify costs and benefits (see Annex I), although quantification is not always achieved (such as for example in the United Kingdom 62 ).

41 In those cases where quantification and monetisation is difficult, a robust analysis of qualitative aspects can help to compare alternative options. A qualitative comparison of options is done in all impact assessments. However, in terms of the methods used, the Court s analysis showed that multi-criteria analysis was used in 44 % of IA reports, sensitivity analysis in 12 % and risk analysis in 11 %. All these three methods feature in the IA guidelines as methods for comparing impacts Annexes to Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, pp Finally, a consistent depth of analysis facilitates comparison between options. However, the Court s analysis revealed that, in approximately half of the cases reviewed, the depth of analysis for the different options was not balanced. Significantly more information was presented for a subgroup of the options and often only for the specific option that was later retained for the Commission proposal. Av a i l a b i l i t y o f d a t a f o r i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s r e m a i n s a pr o b l e m 69. many of the challenges with the analysis of impacts can be traced back to the problem of data availability. According to interviews with Commission staff, the timely collection of standardised and comparable data poses a particular problem. Differences in the availability and reliability of data between Member States compound this issue, as illustrated in the example below (see Box 8). BOX 8 Example of problems with data quality and availability In the case of Equal Opportunities the IA, report acknowledges a lack of reliable data on discrimination and points to the fact that collecting data on certain grounds of discrimination [ ] is not undertaken systematically by the Member States 64. In order to mitigate these problems the Commission complemented existing data with opinion surveys on people s perception and experience of discrimination. 64 European Commission, IA for the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, SEC(2008) 2180, p. 11.

42 during the period audited, increasing use was made of external studies to gather data and this is further encouraged in the 2009 revision of the Commission guidelines 65. On the other hand, the audit found that internal sources such as the Commission s Joint Research Centre (JRC) or Eurostat (the Commission s statistics department) are not actively used to determine the availability of M ember State specific data for IA purposes a n d t o p r o v i d e s u c h d a t a ( f o r e x a m p l e i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h national statistics offices). The network of bodies like the Committee of Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee or the High Level Group for Better Regulation are also not used to that end. 65 European Commission, 2009 Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92, p Council, General Secretariat, Competitiveness Council conclusions on better regulation, 9663/09 COMPET 264, ; point In its recent conclusions on better regulation, the Competit i v e n e s s C o u n c i l i n v i t e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h Member States at an early stage when gathering data for the preparation of IAs in order to take into account Member State specificities in its subsequent preparatory work 66. Information on implementation aspects, enforcement costs and administrative burden can be further improved 72. the effectiveness of an intervention and its costs are influenced by the way in which it is implemented and enforced by the Commission, and ultimately by the Member States. Missing i n fo r m a t i o n o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p roblems e n c o u n t e red w i t h existing legislation is problematic since knowledge of such aspects is relevant to prevent similar problems after a review. This is why implementation aspects should be analysed in an IA, and information on the transposition and implementation of existing regulatory measures needs to be collected. This information can be provided inter alia through the ex post evaluation of existing policies and programmes.

43 41 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n a s p e c t s a r e n o t a l w a y s s u f f i c i e n t l y a n a l y s e d i n i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s 73. while implementation aspects are addressed in the Commission IAs, the audit found that they do not, in all cases, give sufficient emphasis to implementation arrangements. The Cour t s analysis indicates that at least a reference to an implementation plan was provided in no more than approximately half of all reports reviewed. Several cases were found where important implementation aspects had not been adequately analysed in the IA reports. Once the legislative proposal is submitted to the European Parliament and the Council, a more detailed assessment of these aspects is summarised in specific implementation plans. Furthermore, correlation tables are used by the Commission to monitor legal acts through which specific EU provisions have been transposed into national legislation. 67 Algemene Rekenkamer, European legislation: The implementation of European directives and the enforcement of European regulations in the Netherlands, 17 June enquiries with users of IA reports outside the Commission (MEPs, Member State representatives and officials of the European Parliament and Council) indicated that the implications of transposition and implementation were of great relevance during the legislative decision-making process. This is also corroborated by the work of national audit bodies in Member States 67. The example in Box 9 illustrates possible consequences of an inadequate analysis of implementation aspects during the legislative decision-making process. BOX 9 Assessment of implementation aspects: Impact assessments on Consumer rights The IA on consumer rights 68 did not contain a robust analysis of the European harmonisation effect that would ensue in the different Member States from the proposed directive 69. In particular, the IA lacked an analysis of the differences between the existing national legislation and the new proposed harmonised rules on consumer rights legislation. This was also noted by the Consumer Protection Working Group composed of MEPs from the European Parliament s Committee on the Internal Market 70. As a consequence, the initial Commission proposal is expected to be significantly modified during the legislative procedure to better take the specific situation of Member States into account. 68 European Commission, IA on Consumer rights, SEC(2008) European Commission, Proposal for a directive on consumer rights, COM(2008) The presentation of the Commission s IA and the subsequent discussion during the Consumer Protection Working Group meeting on 4 February 2009 was observed as part of the audit evidence collection procedures.

44 commission staff in charge of IAs indicated difficulties in assessing such specific aspects for a European Union in which legislation is incorporated into 27 legal systems and implemented and enforced by an even higher number of national and regional bodies. They also pointed to the absence of national IAs for EU initiatives, which could provide a valuable source of information on potential obstacles to effective implementation resulting from specific national contexts and reliable estimates for the potential enforcement costs of a legislative proposal (see paragraph 41). E x p o s t e v a l u a t i o n s o f e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e s a n d p r o g r a m m e s a r e n o t c a r r i e d o u t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a c r o s s a l l l e g i s l a t i v e a r e a s 76. a public intervention (and its actual impact) should be assessed through ongoing monitoring and ex post evaluation to improve further development of interventions. To enable learning and feedback for future initiatives, ex post evaluations would need to collect relevant information on compliance with legislation and the effectiveness of the rules as compared with the envisaged results initially set out in the IA European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, p. 45 and European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92, pp European Commission, Evaluation in the Commission Reporting on results: annual evaluation review 2007 Conclusions and findings from evaluations in the Commission, COM(2008) 300, May 2008; Annexes I and II. 73 Breugel, Memos to the new Commission Europe s economic priorities , Edited by André Sapir, 2009, p an understanding of how effectively EU legislation has been transposed and implemented is a significant element to be considered by the Commission whenever putting forward proposals for revised legislation. The audit showed that, during the period audited, the focus of the Commission s ex post evaluations differed significantly from that of IA. An analysis of the Commission s overview of its 2007 evaluations 72 shows that only 24 % of ex post evaluations addressed issues related to the review of existing (sectoral or cross-cutting) legislation. This fact was also noted in a recent study 73.

45 43 E n f o r c e m e n t c o s t s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i ve b u r d e n s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y q u a n t i f i e d E n f o r c e m e n t c o s t s 78. drafting enforcement-friendly legislation is the most effective way to prevent excessive enforcement costs 74. The Commission q u a n t i f i e s e n f o r c e m e n t c o s t s i n t h e I A r e p o r t s i n t h e c a s e s where they deem them relevant and significant. The Court observed that, in practice, whilst enforcement costs are referred to in many IA reports, quantified estimates of such costs were thoroughly analysed in only few cases. For EU expenditure programmes, such costs are either incurred at the Commission itself (in the case of direct management) or jointly with the Member States (in the case of shared or decentralised management). The in-depth review of the IAs related to two major EU expenditure programmes (i.e. the IAs on cohesion and the seventh RTD framework programme (FP7) 75 ) showed that in these cases enforcement costs had not been quantified in detail. 74 European Commission, A Europe of results Applying Community law, COM(2007) 502, p SEC(2005) 430 and SEC(2004) 924 respectively. 76 European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EP, the EESC and the CoR: Action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the European Union, COM(2007) 23 final, A d m i n i s t r a t i ve b u r d e n o f e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n : r e d u c t i o n a c t i o n p r o g r a m m e 79. In March 2007, under the EU better regulation initiative, the Commission and the Heads of State or Government of all the Member States agreed to reduce the administrative burden resulting from existing EU law by 25 % by The Commission subsequently initiated a systematic measurement of information costs for businesses resulting from EU legislation 76 (see Box 10). In August 2007, a High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens was set up to provide advice to the Commission in this area.

46 44 SCM r a r e l y u s e d t o q u a n t i f y p o t e n t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i ve b u r d e n s o f n e w l e g i s l a t i o n 80. In the context of an IA for new legislation, the Commission s guidelines require that the Standard Cost Model (SCM) is used to quantify administrative burden, where this is expected to be significant 77. The SCM is a relatively simple and standardised methodology that is applied in many countries (see Annex I). The assessment of such costs is less complex than determining all economic, social and environmental impacts. 77 European Commission, 2005/2006 Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791, Annex out of the 39 IA reports in 2008 examined by the Court, the Commission considered assessing administrative burdens in 35 cases. In 14 of these 35 cases the administrative burden was also quantified. However, the SCM was used in only four of these. BOX 10 commission s Action Programme aimed at cutting red tape In October 2009, the Commission finalised its measurement of the administrative burdens 78 that businesses incur in meeting EU legal obligations to provide information on their products or activities, either to public authorities or to private parties 79. This study estimated the costs imposed by the 72 acts covered by the action programme and its 13 priority areas at 123,8 billion euro in The Commission has identified a total of 486 EU information obligations, and more than national obligations which transpose or implement these EU obligations (of which more than 700 go beyond EU legal requirements). Based on this analysis, and in addition to measures that are under its own responsibility, the Commission has initiated a number of legislative proposals to remove or reduce administrative burdens: so far, the European Parliament and the Council have adopted 33 acts (with an estimated reduction of 5,7 billion euro) proposed by the Commission. A further 18 measures that could bring an estimated reduction of 30,7 billion euro are still pending. 78 European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the EU Sectoral reduction plans and 2009 actions, COM(2009) 544 final, Information costs include labelling, reporting, registration, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the information. In some cases, the information has to be transferred to public authorities or private parties. In others, it only has to be available for inspection or supply on request. 80 Agriculture and agricultural subsidies, annual accounts and company law, cohesion policy, environment, financial services, fisheries, food safety, pharmaceutical legislation, public procurement, statistics, taxation and customs, transport, working environment and employment relations.

47 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45 U s e o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s f o r d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n, t h e Eu r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d t h e Co u n c i l 82. since 2002, the Commission has put in place a comprehensive i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s ystem, w h i c h, fo r s e veral o f t h e a s p e c t s reviewed by the Court, can be considered as good practice within the EU. The Court also noted improvements in the Commission s impact assessments during the period audited. Particularly in recent years, impact assessments have helped to improve the Commission s ability to formulate its proposals. The audit found evidence that the IA procedures have become an integral element of the policy development process and that IA reports are actively used by decision-makers within the Commission. 83. regulatory quality is the responsibility of all three EU institutions involved in the legislative process. The Commission s IAs are systematically forwarded to the European Parliament and Council and users within both institutions consider them helpful when considering the Commission s legislative proposals. However, IAs are not updated during the legislative procedure as amendments are proposed. Once the initial Commission proposal is amended, neither the Commission, nor the European Parliament or the Council systematically analyse the impact of those amendments. Therefore, the estimated impacts of the final legislative act are not known if there have been substantial amendments.

48 46 T h e Co m m i s s i o n s pr o c e d u r e s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s 84. transparency lends credibility, and the Commission s approach to impact assessment is strongest where it provides such transparency. Examples are the publication of the CLWP, roadmaps, full version of the final IA report and, since 2007, the IAB opinions. However, this repor t identifies the following weak nesses with regard to the Commission s procedures for selecting initiatives to undergo IA, for consultation with interested parties and for the quality review of draft IA reports: the Commission did not indicate in advance all the initiatives which were to undergo an IA and, for IAs relating to legislative proposals outside the CLWP, the reasons for the selection of which initiatives were to be analysed were not made public; consultations with stakeholders were not carried out on draft IA reports. As a result, the potential benefits of public scrutiny before the proposal is finalised (i.e. gathering the views of all parties concerned at an early stage and the increased acceptance of the resulting legislative proposal) have not fully materialised; and the IAB was found to contribute to the quality of IAs. However, in some cases, quality review took place too late in the process. Recommendation 1 The Commission should enhance the i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t process by: providing an overview of all legislative initiatives (including the review of existing legislation) for which it intends to undertake an IA. A reasoned justification should be provided when an IA is not performed; publishing, for information and comment, interim docum e n t s (s u c h a s r o a d m a p s a n d a d r a f t v e r s i o n o f t h e I A report); and ensuring that the IAB s quality review of IA work takes place on a timely basis.

49 47 C o n t e n t a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n s im p a c t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s 85. the Commission has adopted an ambitious approach to IA by aiming to analyse all significant economic, social and environmental impacts in one single assessment. IA reports should contain a description of the problem at stake, analyse all feasible policy options in terms of costs and benefits and provide an assessment of implementation and enforcement issues and an estimate of the administrative burden resulting from proposed legislation. It also sets out a framework for future m o n i t o r i n g a n d e v a l u a t i o n. T h i s c o m p rehensive a s s e s s m e n t compares favourably to other IA systems. 86. overall, the IA reports were found to have complied with the requirements specified in the Commission s guidelines. However, the audit identified a number of weaknesses with regard to content and presentation of IA reports: the main results and messages of IA repor ts are not always easy to gather, including how an intervention is expected to attain its objectives. Comparing the impacts of the various polic y options presented in an IA repor t is sometimes difficult; difficulties in quantifying and monetising impacts can be traced back to the availability of data. This is an area in which the Commission does not yet fully exploit either internal capacities or those of Member States; implementation aspects are not always sufficiently analysed in impact assessments. Ex post evaluations that could provide relevant information on existing policies and programmes for use in the context of an IA are often not available for legislative measures; and potential enforcement costs and administrative burden resulting from European legislation are not always sufficiently quantified. The SCM is rarely used to quantify potential administrative burdens.

50 48 Recommendation 2 The Commission should enhance the presentation of impact assessment reports and its content by : preparing IA reports in a way that facilitates the comparison of alternative options in terms of their estimated impacts by improving the quantification and monetisation of impacts and the presentation of qualitative analysis; 81 See Court s response to the Commission s communication Reforming the budget, changing Europe ; ECA opinion No 1/2010 Improving the financial management of the European Union budget: risks and challenges. developing a strategy to improve the quality of data available for IA, taking into account the specific situations in individual Member States; putting more emphasis on implementation aspects and making more use of ex post evaluations of implementation of EU legislation as an input for the IA process; and analysing the enforcement costs of its legislative proposals in more detail and where administrative burdens a r e q u a n t i f i e d c o n s i s t e n t l y u s i n g t h e S t a n d a r d C o s t m o d e l. I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t i n t h e EU i n s t i t u t i o n s : a n e f f e c t i v e s u p p o r t f o r d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g 87. the Court considers that the Commission should give due consideration to the principles of clarity of objectives, simplification, realism, transparency and accountability when designing new and revising existing interventions 81. On balance, the audit has shown that, particularly in recent years, IA has been effective in supporting decision-making within the EU institutions. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission may wish to consider the findings and recommendations set out in this repor t when revising their interinstitutional agreements on better regulation and a common approach to IA. This will a l s o p rovide a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e c h a n g e s resulting from the Lisbon Treaty that came into force on 1 December 2009, such as the generalised right of initiative for a group of M ember States and the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making.

51 49 this report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 19 May For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira President

52 50 ANNEx I COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION S SYSTEM WITH IA SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE European Commission Germany (federal level) France Scope of IA system Legislative proposals* Always Always For major regulation Implementing measures* For major regulation Always In some cases Other non-regulatory initiatives Yes No No Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory No No No proposals* Analysis of impacts Integrated approach to economic, social and Yes Yes No environmental impacts Cost: quantitative assessment* In some cases Always For major regulation Benefits: quantitative assessment* In some cases In some cases For major regulation Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative Yes Yes Yes burden* Quality control body External to the administration No Yes (only admin. burden) No Can prompt IA work No No No Can block regulatory proposals* No Yes No Publication of IA work List of forthcoming IAs No No No Interim IA documents No In some cases No Final IA reports Always Always No Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted No Yes No impacts of regulations* * Sources: OECD, Indicators of regulatory management systems, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country analysis.

53 51 ANNEx I COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION S SYSTEM WITH IA SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE The Netherlands United Kingdom United States (federal level) Scope of IA system Legislative proposals* For major regulation Always No Implementing measures* For major regulation Always For major regulation Other non-regulatory initiatives No Yes No Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory No Yes Yes proposals* Analysis of impacts Integrated approach to economic, social and No No No environmental impacts Cost: quantitative assessment* Always Always For major regulation Benefits: quantitative assessment* Always Always For major regulation Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative Yes Yes No burden* Quality control body External to the administration Yes (only admin. burden) Yes (only admin. burden) No Can prompt IA work No No Yes Can block regulatory proposals* No Yes Yes Publication of IA work List of forthcoming IAs No Always Always Interim IA documents No Always Always Final IA reports In some cases Always Always Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted No Yes Yes impacts of regulations* * Sources: OECD, Indicators of regulatory management systems, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country analysis.

54 52 ANNEx II AUDIT APPROACH AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION METHODS Identifying the audit subject and planning the audit fieldwork 1. the European Court of Auditors identified in November 2007, in its annual work programme for 2008, the Better regulation programme and impact assessments as a relevant audit subject 1. In May and June 2008 a preliminary study was conducted which determined the scope of this audit. The audit fieldwork was carried out between October 2008 and July 2009, based on a specific audit planning memorandum and evidence collection plan. Overview of evidence collection methods utilised during the audit 2. First, the audit team reviewed relevant policy decisions, applicable guidelines of the European institutions (Commission, EP, Council), the OECD, the Member States and countries outside the EU (USA, Australia), previous evaluations of the Commission s IA system 2, studies and academic literature in the fields of Better Regulation and regulatory impact analysis 3 and participated in conferences related to the subject moreover, the audit work comprised the following five work packages: a comparison of the Commission s IA system with systems elsewhere (WP 1); a quantitative analysis of the extent to which Commission initiatives during the period audited had been subject to IA, and how these IAs had been used by the European Parliament and the Council during the legislative procedure (WP 2); a scorecard analysis of a sample of IA reports to verify whether the Commission had carried out its assessments in accordance with its own internal procedures and methodological guidance, together with an in- depth review of a sample of IA repor ts (WP 3); enquiries with people involved in performing, reviewing and using the Commission s IAs both within and outside the Commission (WP 4); and sur veys among members of Council work ing par ties and the Direc tors and Exper ts of Better Regulation (WP 5). 4. detailed information on the content of the five work packages is provided hereafter.

55 53 ANNEx II WP 1 In t e r n a t i o n a l c o m p a r i s o n Specific aspects of the Commission s IA system were compared to approaches followed elsewhere on the basis of publicly available documentation (such as OECD documentation 5, academic literature and comparative studies by bodies responsible for better regulation in the Member States 6 or cofunded by the European Commission 7. Corroborative evidence was gained through country visits to the USA and seven EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom). WP 2 Qu a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s An analysis of the coverage of the Commission s IA system as a whole to verify to what extent impact assessments were applied to Commission initiatives published during the period audited and the items contained in the CLWPs. For this purpose, a database of almost Commission initiatives was established and analysed. The audit team also assessed the extent to which the EP and the Council used the Commission s IAs, on the basis of the publicly available documentation of the two institutions (such as meeting agendas, minutes, references in resolutions, etc.). M o re ove r, t h e a u d i t comprised a comparative a n a l ysis o f t h e s cope a n d n u m b e r o f I As and retrospective evaluations undertaken in WP 3 Sc o r e c a r d a n a l y s i s a n d i n- d e p t h r e v i e w The scorecard analysis was carried out for all IA reports produced by five directoratesgeneral: Energy and Transport (DG TREN) 8 ; Regional Policy (DG REGIO); Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (DG EMPL); Research (DG RTD); Information Society and Media (DG INFSO). This corresponds to 115 (out of a total of 404) IA reports published between 2003 and The scorecard was established on the basis of the Commission s IA guidelines, and took account of the requirements applicable at the date of publication of the IA report 9. The checklists used by the United Kingdom NAO in a similar exercise related to the United Kingdom impact assessment system 10 and those used by a previous evaluation of the Commission s IA system 11 were taken into consideration for the preparation of the scorecard. Fur ther questions such as cer tain aspec ts related to the I mpac t Assessment Board s quality control were added. In addition, an in-depth review was carried out to observe the complete life-cycle from the legislative proposal to the monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes. The sample included not only recent cases (in particular to assess the IAB s role), but also reports dating back two years or more. It included both reports for proposals with and without budgetar y implications and IAs related to directly applicable legislative pro posals (decisions and regulations) and those requiring transposition and implementation in the Member States (directives) 12. Some additional cases from outside the remit of the five DGs in the sample were included in this review to obtain a corroborative view on the situation across the Commission as a whole.

56 54 ANNEx II WP 4 In t e r v i e w s During the audit, around 190 people were interviewed to obtain their views on the Commission s IA system. These were producers (Commission staff in the policy units responsible, the IA support units in the DGs, and the Secretariat General) and users within the EU Institutions (such as staff from the Commissioners private offices, MEPs, EP and Council staff, and staff from the Permanent Representations). They also included representatives from international and national organisations involved in better regulation (such as the OECD and agencies in the Member States), other bodies and groups (such as the High Level Group of National Regulatory Experts and the High Level Expert Group on Administrative Burdens ). In addition, interviews were carried out with representatives of stakeholder organisations: Business Europe, Eurochambers, European Consumers Organisation, European Environmental Bureau, European Federations for Transport and Environment, European Trade Union Federation, Social Forum, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). WP 5 Su r v e y s Two surveys were performed during this audit: the first, in May/June 2009, among the members of seven Council working parties on social questions, information society, energy, transport (maritime transport; land transport; transport, intermodal questions and networks), research, structural actions, and better regulation, concerning their perception and use of the Commission s impac t assessments; the second, among the delegations of 25 Member States and Norway at the Directors and Experts of Better Regulation meeting of 3 5 June 2009 in Sandhamn (Sweden). International experts in the field of Better Regulation provided support throughout the audit A d v i s o r y p a n e l 5. an advisory panel of experts in the field of better regulation and impact assessment in November 2008 and March 2009 was set up to provide support throughout the audit 13. The experts main input was to contribute to the Court s methodology and analysis and endorse the overall structure for presenting the audit observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report.

57 55 ANNEx II 6. In particular, the experts provided their input to the specification of robust audit standards against which the observations in this report are made. These standards were developed on the basis of a meta-analysis of documents issued by the Mandelkern Group 14, the OECD 15 and the Commission 16 and of agreements between the latter and the European Parliament and the Council 17 to specify a set of conditions (or good practices ) which illustrate what should be expected from an effective impact assessment system 18. F o c u s g r o u p 7. an important step in this audit was the review of the preliminary audit findings during a series of facilitated focus groups from 8 to 10 July 2009 in Luxembourg with international experts in the field of better regulation and IA. These focus groups constituted an integral part of the audit process and were designed to provide a forum for the critical review o f t h e Co u r t s p reliminar y conclusions a n d p o s s i b l e recommendations. E x p e r t s i n c l u d e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e O E C D, t h e Wo r l d B a n k, a g e n c i e s i n c h a r g e o f I A work (or quality control) in the USA and several EU Member States, national audit bodies, but also academics, evaluators of IA systems and representatives of the High Level Expert Group on Administrative Burdens. Representatives of the Commission participated as observers. More information on the purpose of focus groups is provided hereafter. W h a t i s a fo c u s g r o u p? Focus groups bring together a group of individuals with a common interest in the form of a collective interview or a structured discussion in which open-ended, but focused, questions are asked so as to trigger a debate amongst the participants. They are particularly well-suited for obtaining a number of views on the same subjec t. The use of focus groups is common in marketing and, increasingly, in politics and opinion polling in order to elicit responses and reveal new perspectives from a group of people held to be representative of consumers or target groups. The participants need to have an interest in the subject and ideally there should be a mixture of backgrounds. During a focus group session it can be expected that the discussion will stimulate views that, at first, are diverse and even divergent. One key role of the facilitator is therefore to manage the discussion in such a way that common ground can be found and views begin to converge, although full consensus of views is not the aim of a focus group discussion.

58 56 ANNEx II 8. the exper ts were asked by external facilitators to scrutinise the audit work: the standards that were applied, the facts and findings reported, the conclusions drawn from this and, finally, whether the recommendations would help to mitigate the challenges observed by the audit. Their review significantly contributed to the quality, relevance and legitimacy of the overall outcome of the audit process. A report summarising the proceedings and the outcome of the discussions by the external facilitators was submitted to all participants, and the Commission, in August ECA, 2008 Annual Work Programme, p. 3; ECA, Annual Activity Report, p The Evaluation Partnership, Evaluation of the Commission s impact assessment system, Contract SG-02/2006 on behalf of the European Commission, April Radaelli, C., What does regulatory impact assessment mean in Europe?, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, USA, January 2005; Rowe, G. C., Tools for the control of political and administrative agents: impact assessment and administrative governance in the European Union in Hoffman, H. C. H. and Turk, A. H. (eds), EU administrative governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 452, 2006; Renda, A., Impact assessment in the EU The state of the art and the art of the state, CEPS Paperbacks, 2006; Mather, G. and Vibert, F., Evaluating better regulation: building the system, City Research Series, European Policy Forum, London, 2006; Wiener, J. B., Better regulation in Europe, in Current Legal Problems, 2006, Vol. 56; Kirkpatrick, C., Parker, D. et al., Regulatory impact assessment. Towards better regulation?, The CRC Series on Competition, Regulation and Development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Massachusetts, USA, 2007; Meuwese, A. C. M., Impact assessment in EU lawmaking, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, 2008; Open Europe, Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation, 2009; Hertin, J. et al., The production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment An empirical analysis in Forest Policy and Economics, 2009; Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS); Policy-making in the EU Achievements, challenges and proposals for reform, International Regulatory Reform Conference, Berlin, November 2008; Zwischenbilanz Nationaler Normenkontrollrat (NKR), Berlin, May OECD, Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) inventory, April 2004; OECD, Regulatory impact analysis Best practices in EU countries, 1997; OECD, APEC OECD integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, 2005; OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems, December DEBR, Report to the ministers responsible for public administration in the EU Member States on the progress of the implementation of the Mandelkern Report s action plan on better regulation, Athens, 2003; EU Directors of Better Regulation Group, A comparative analysis of regulatory impact assessment in 10 EU countries, May 2004.

59 57 ANNEx II Notes continued... 7 European Network for Better Regulation (ENBR) (see Evaluating integrated impact assessments (EVIA) (see The EVIA project was funded by the Commission under FP6. It was coordinated by the Freie Universität Berlin and the research partners were the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Avanzi, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), the Centre for Regulatory Governance at the University of Exeter and the Institute for Environmental Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. 8 This DG was split into the Energy DG (DG ENER) and the Mobility and Transport DG (DG MOVE) on 17 February European Commission, Communication on Impact assessment 2002 IA guidelines, COM(2002) 276 final; European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791 (unless otherwise stated); European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) National Audit Office (NAO), Delivering high quality impact assessments, , pp Evaluation Partnership Ltd (TEP), Evaluation of the Commission s impact assessment system, April Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (SEC(2004) 924); Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities ( ) (SEC(2005) 430); Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (SEC(2005) 1514); Regulation on roaming (SEC(2006) 925); Decision on effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (SEC(2008) 85/3); Proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (SEC(2008) 2180 and SEC(2008) 2181/2). 13 The members of the advisory panel were Erwin de Pue (Director-General of Dienst voor de Administratieve Vereenvoudiging), Gisela Färber (Member of the German Normenkontrollrat and Professor at DHV Speyer), Klaus Jacob (EVIA Project Coordinator at FU Berlin), Claudio Radaelli (University of Exeter), Alberto Alemanno (Law clerk at the European Court of Justice and Professor at HEC Paris) and Jeroen Nijland (Director-General of the Regulatory Reform Group). 14 Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, Final report, 13 November OECD (1997) Regulatory impact analysis Best practices in EU countries, Paris; OECD (2005) APEC-OECD integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, OECD, Paris. 16 European Commission, Communication on Impact assessment, COM(2002) 276 final; European Commission, Communication on Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, COM(2002) 704 final; Information note from the President to the Commission, Enhancing quality support and control for Commission impact assessments, The Impact Assessment Board, 14 November 2006; European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2005) 791; European Commission, Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92.

60 58 ANNEx II Notes continued Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01); Interinstitutional common approach to impact assessment (IA), These good practices were first discussed at the second meeting of the Expert Advisory Panel on 27 March 2009 and subsequently reviewed by the participants of the Focus Group meeting from 8 to 10 July CM International, Meirion Thomas, Report on the focus groups held in support of audit task 08TR2203, August 2009.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 19.5.2015 COM(2015) 216 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation

ISSN 1725-1257 EN GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL Rules of Procedure of the European Council Rules of Procedure of the Council REFERENCE TEXTS DECEMBER 2009 Rules of Procedure of the European Council

25.6.2003 L 156/17 DIRECTIVE 2003/35/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating

QC-76-06-353-EN-C EN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION GENERAL SECRETARIAT Handling impact assessments in Council INDICATIVE GUIDANCE FOR WORKING PARTY CHAIRS ISBN 92-824-3284-X,!7IJ2I2-edcieg! kg611572cee_couv.indd

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 12.12.2012 COM(2012) 746 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF

Inter-Institutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment (IA) General principles 1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission recall their agreement on Impact Assessment in the Inter-Institutional

European Commission IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES 15 January 2009 SEC(2009) 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 HOW TO USE THESE GUIDELINES?... 3 WHERE TO FIND MORE ADVICE AND SUPPORT?... 3 PART I: IMPACT

Rules of Procedure DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, Having regard to Regulation (EC)

European Qualifications Framework The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.6.2013 COM(2013) 449 final 2013/0213 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic invoicing in public procurement (Text with

Initial appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment European Commission proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of laws of the Member States to the making available on the market of radio

Report on the annual accounts of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the financial year 2014 together with the Agency s reply 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi - L - 1615 Luxembourg T (+352)

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 15 April 2010 8173/10 Interinstitutional File: 2008/0140 (CNS) SOC 240 JAI 270 MI 94 NOTE from : The Presidency to : The Working Party on Social Questions No. prev.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 30.12.2004 COM(2004) 839 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW (2003) OVERALL POSITION 21st ANNUAL REPORT {SEC(2004)

Report on the annual accounts of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications for the financial year 2014 together with the Office s reply 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi - L -

L 122/28 Official Journal of the European Union 16.5.2009 DIRECTIVE 2009/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15 December 2009 SEC(2009) 1720 final COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION FROM MR POTOČNIK IN AGREEMENT WITH VICE-PRESIDENT KALLAS Simplification of the recovery process in the

COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE PRESIDENT, MS WALLSTRÖM, MR KALLAS, MS HÜBNER AND MS FISCHER BOEL PROPOSING THE LAUNCH OF A EUROPEAN TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE Memorandum to the Commission Compliance

Government Decree No. 29/2008. (II. 19.) on the Powers and Competences of the Minister Heading the Prime Minister s Office Acting pursuant to Paragraph 3 Article 28 of Act LVII of 2006 on the Central Administration

L 132/32 COMMISSION IMPLEMTING REGULATION (EU) No 447/2014 of 2 May 2014 on the specific rules for implementing Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an

29.3.2014 Official Journal of the European Union L 96/149 DIRECTIVE 2014/32/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating

European judicial training 2014 Justice Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone

Initial appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment European Commission proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a space surveillance and tracking support

REMARKS: This is an initial textual proposal for a draft Chapter on Regulatory Cooperation that the Commission intends to submit to the US on Friday, 30 January, in preparation of the 8 th round of TTIP

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX COM(2012) 11/3 draft Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal

7.3.2 RULES ON DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE BUREAU, BUREAU DECISION OF 2 JULY 2012 - having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 354/1983 of 1 February 1983 concerning the

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: ELECTORAL PROCEDURES The procedures for electing the European Parliament are governed both by European legislation defining rules common to all Member States and by specific national

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG MARKT/ 19.07.2007 CONSULTATION ON A POSSIBLE STATUTE FOR A EUROPEAN PRIVATE COMPANY (EPC) Consultation by the Services of the Internal Market Directorate

Code of Audit Practice APRIL 2015 Code of Audit Practice Published pursuant to Schedule 6 Para 2 of the Local Audit and Accountability This document is available on our website at: www.nao.org.uk/ consultation-code-audit-practice

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DATA RETENTION (EC DIRECTIVE) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. 2199 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Home Office and is laid before Parliament by Command of

Initial Provisions for CHAPTER [ ] Regulatory Cooperation General notes: 1. As TTIP negotiations progress, the provisions in this Chapter may be reviewed in the light of developments in other Chapters,

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 7 October 2003 (OR. en) 12858/03 RECH 152 OC 589 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS Subject : Council Decision on the signing of the Framework Agreement between

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 12.10.2004 COM(2004) 642 final 2004/0239 (COD) Proposal for a RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on further European cooperation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Enterprise and Industry DG EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG THE EUROPEAN MULTI STAKEHOLDER FORUM ON E-INVOICING: ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE WAY AHEAD Introduction The European

Council of the European Union Brussels, 28 June 2016 (OR. en) 10721/16 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: General Secretariat of the Council On: 28 June 2016 To: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 10320/16 REV 1 Subject:

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission Mission Letter Brussels, 1 November 2014 Kristalina Georgieva Vice-President for Budget and Human Resources Dear Kristalina, You are becoming a

TTIP Proposal for Chapter: Good Regulatory Practices Article 1 General Provisions: 1. The parties reaffirm their commitment to good regulatory principles and practices to achieve public policy objectives

27.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 372/1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) DECISION No 1855/2006/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 establishing

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 20.7.2006 SEC(2006) 996 final PRELIMINARY DRAFT AMENDING BUDGET N 5 TO THE GENERAL BUDGET 2006 GENERAL STATEMENT OF REVENUE STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

L 69/112 Official Journal of the European Union 8.3.2014 RECOMMENDATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 7 March 2014 on strengthening the principle of equal pay between men and women through transparency

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 3.12.2012 COM(2012) 721 final 2012/0340 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.3.2015 COM(2015) 145 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens'

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 9.12.2015 COM(2015) 627 final 2015/0284 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on ensuring the cross-border portability of online content

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR RESEARCH & INNOVATION Brussels, 24 January 2013 CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST FOR THE SELECTION OF EXPERTS FOR THE HORIZON 2020 ADVISORY GROUPS 1. Background

European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting B8-0000/2016 7.12.2016 EUROPEAN PARLIAMT DRAFT RECOMMDATION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION pursuant to the third subparagraph of Rule 198(10) of the Rules

Interim evaluation of the EC Library and e-resources Centre Executive Summary Written by Panteia September 2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education and Culture DG EAC D3 Library and e-resources

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.11.2012 C(2012) 8548 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 26.11.2012 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.8.2013 SWD(2013) 308 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Elements of the Union greenhouse gas inventory system and the Quality Assurance and Control (QA/QC) programme

ISSN 1977-091X Official Journal C 76 A of the European Union English edition Information and Notices Volume 55 15 March 2012 Notice No Contents Page V Announcements ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES European Personnel

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 29.04.1999 COM(1999) 195 fmal 98/0191(COD) Amended proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on a common framework for electronic signatures

APPLICATION of KING III CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 2013 Application of Corporate Governance Principles This table is a useful reference to each of the principles and how, in broad terms, they have

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 11 February 2010 6092/10 Interinstitutional File: 2008/0140 (CNS) SOC 75 JAI 108 MI 39 NOTE from : The Presidency to : The Working Party on Social Questions on :

Option Table - Directive on Statutory Audits of Annual and Consolidated Accounts The purpose of this document is to highlight the changes in the options available to Member States and Competent Authorities

Rules of Procedure for the Executive Board Section 1. Introduction. Rules of procedure. Article 1. 1.1. These Rules of Procedure were drawn up by the Executive Board to supplement the relevant provisions

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 21.01.2000 COM(1999) 708 final 2000/0021 (COD) Proposal for a RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on mobility within the Community

Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) CONTRIBUTION OF THE XLI COSAC Prague, 10-12 May 2009 1. Current Economic and Financial Situation 1.1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT THE FUTURE OF THE COMMISSION GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 101 TFEU TO MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES EN EN This document is a European Commission

EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, SEC(2008) 350/2 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL facilitating

Council of the European Union Brussels, 14 November 2014 (OR. en) 15206/14 FREMP 198 JAI 846 COHOM 152 POLG 156 NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Council Ensuring respect for the rule of law in the European

Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission Mission letter Brussels, 10 September 2014 Federica Mogherini High Representative of the Union for Foreign Policy and Security Policy/Vice-President

Regulation on the implementation of the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 adopted by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs pursuant to Article 8.8 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Brussels, 14 September 2012 DG CNECT CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST FOR THE SELECTION OF EXPERTS FOR "CONNECT